something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:28 am

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Correction: I am certainly not positing that point of view.
then how does a thing change? if not due to other, then due to itself?
Which level do you want to take this question? How does a thing change(which are a terms of conventional designation)? Interdependence.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:47 am

tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Correction: I am certainly not positing that point of view.
then how does a thing change? if not due to other, then due to itself?
Which level do you want to take this question? How does a thing change(which are a terms of conventional designation)? Interdependence.
im interested in the subtlest nature of change pertaining to physical objects.

you say interdependence, so i guess this means change is produced by other objects right? then whats wrong with saying that things are momentary (ie. only last a moment)? thats how long it takes for objects to act upon the main object in order to change it.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:02 am

tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Correction: I am certainly not positing that point of view.
then how does a thing change? if not due to other, then due to itself?
Which level do you want to take this question? How does a thing change(which are a terms of conventional designation)? Interdependence.
im interested in the subtlest nature of change pertaining to physical objects.
Knock yourself out, but rather than getting lost in papañca, start doing some vipassana retreats, start really watching, really seeing the rise and fall of the mind/body process. No need for rococo doctrinal structures. Just paying attention, moving in the deep course of wisdom, seeing there is but 5 heaps and in their own being, seeing their nature as it is, interdependent.

you say interdependence, so i guess this means change is produced by other objects right?
What does Nagarjuna mean when he talks about interdependence? The thing is you really do not pay attention to what I write. What did I say above in what you quoted?

then whats wrong with saying that things are momentary (ie. only last a moment)? thats how long it takes for objects to act upon the main object in order to change it.
At best "things" is a conventional designation. The problem with "things" is taking it beyond what it can carry.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:30 am

tiltbillings wrote:Knock yourself out, but rather than getting lost in papañca, start doing some vipassana retreats, start really watching, really seeing the rise and fall of the mind/body process. No need for rococo doctrinal structures.
unfortunately its the other way round. until one can think correctly there is not much use in trying to perform analysis under the influence of concentration.

after all, "hindus" are very good at observing momentariness and yet those highly sophisticated yogis of the past conjured up atman.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:39 am

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Knock yourself out, but rather than getting lost in papañca, start doing some vipassana retreats, start really watching, really seeing the rise and fall of the mind/body process. No need for rococo doctrinal structures.
unfortunately its the other way round. until one can think correctly there is not much use in trying to perform analysis under the influence of concentration.
Nonesense. It is not a matter of analysis, which is a conceptual thing. That is Tibetan stuff that has absolutely no bearing here, and it also points to a deficiency in some quarters of Tibetan practice.

after all, "hindus" are very good at observing momentariness and yet those highly sophisticated yogis of the past conjured up atman.
You keep reading other stuff into the Theravada, but having no real understanding of the Theravada and seemingly no real intertest other than presenting your view of what the Theravada should be based upon the Tibetan tenet system, which has no bearing upon the Theravada whatsoever. Reginald Ray states in his Indestructible Truth:

. . . "Hinayana" refers to a critical but strictly limited set of views, practices, and results. The pre-Mahayana historical traditions such as the Theravada are far richer, more complex, and more profound than the definition of "Hinayana" would allow. ...The tern "Hinayana" is thus a stereotype that is useful in talking about a particular stage on the Tibetan Buddhist path, but it is really not appropriate to assume that the Tibetan definition of Hinayana identifies a venerable living tradition as the Theravada or any other historical school.." Page 240.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Paññāsikhara » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:37 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:

I'm not sure if it is this exactly which Tilt is referring to as "bad philosophy", but it is pretty bad.
I would have gotten to it eventually, but thanks for your very clear exposition.


Sorry if I stole your punchline... :tongue:
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Spiny O'Norman » Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:03 am

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Knock yourself out, but rather than getting lost in papañca, start doing some vipassana retreats, start really watching, really seeing the rise and fall of the mind/body process. No need for rococo doctrinal structures.
unfortunately its the other way round. until one can think correctly there is not much use in trying to perform analysis under the influence of concentration.



The problem with thinking is that it is often an obstacle to direct observation, ie conceptualising is often a hindrance to seeing what is actually happening.
Conceptualising may have a place in later reflection on the insights we gain, but IMO it is not an appropriate activity during meditation practice.

Spiny

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:57 pm

tiltbillings wrote:. . . known to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared . . . . - MNiii 25 Ven Bodhi's trans., MLDB 899. This give a slightly different take. Feelings "persist," but anyone who has attended to feelings with a concentrated/mindful mind knows they do not persist as an unchanging some-"thing."

I agree that does seem to be a good translation. ("Present" is similar to "stand.") How long does it stay present though?

I'd say that it varies... the earth is present for a very long time; this body is present for a shorter time; and thoughts are even shorter. It's not my fault if you confuse between all of these. (That's probably a sign of a poorly-developed dhamma vicaya.)

I never said anything about "unchanging"... I thought that anicca would've been assumed (on this forums, no less) about the so-called "stable thing-ness"; a dhamma (with the lower-case d) that is observed as standing, upaṭṭhahati, for x amount of time, before it falls away. This stablity is an observable dhamma, and the flux is also an observable dhamma. Both of these are anicca. (Which has nothing to do with flux.)

You can debate about the existence/non-existence of "total flux", the existence/non-existence of "total stability" as much as you'd like... much like a saṃsāra-bound, ordinary worldling would've compared to a tathāgata.

Shonin wrote:The perpetual flux of the physical world (which we know to be true from science) then has no bearing on the statements 'exist' and 'not exist'. An analogy would be the emergence of predictable 'Newtonian' physical laws and appearances at a macro level out of the instability and fundamental indeterminacy of the physical world at an atomic level (as revealed by quantum physics).

Science does not say that the physical world is in a perpetual flux. It's a fallacy to say that everything is in flux because of what's been developed in the quantum physics. Its model applies only to the behavior at an atomic level... in fact, it was developed (initially) to study just that.

Here are some quotes from Wikipedia:

Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics providing a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. It departs from classical mechanics primarily at the atomic and subatomic scales, the so-called quantum realm.

Quantum mechanics is essential to understand the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and smaller. For example, if classical mechanics governed the workings of an atom, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus, making stable atoms impossible. However, in the natural world the electrons normally remain in an uncertain, non-deterministic "smeared" (wave–particle wave function) orbital path around or through the nucleus, defying classical electromagnetism.[7] Quantum mechanics was initially developed to provide a better explanation of the atom, especially the spectra of light emitted by different atomic species. The quantum theory of the atom was developed as an explanation for the electron's staying in its orbital, which could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by Maxwell's laws of classical electromagnetism.

Nothing about "flux" here... only a working description of what makes a stable atom.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:56 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:. . . known to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared . . . . - MNiii 25 Ven Bodhi's trans., MLDB 899. This give a slightly different take. Feelings "persist," but anyone who has attended to feelings with a concentrated/mindful mind knows they do not persist as an unchanging some-"thing."

I agree that does seem to be a good translation. ("Present" is similar to "stand.") How long does it stay present though?

I'd say that it varies... the earth is present for a very long time; this body is present for a shorter time; and thoughts are even shorter. It's not my fault if you confuse between all of these. (That's probably a sign of a poorly-developed dhamma vicaya.)
Ooooh, "It's not my fault if you confuse between all of these. (That's probably a sign of a poorly-developed dhamma vicaya.)" An ad hom. Goodness.

I never said anything about "unchanging"
I did not say you did, but Nanavira did and that is what I am addressing, thus the title of this thread.

... I thought that anicca would've been assumed (on this forums, no less) about the so-called "stable thing-ness"; a dhamma (with the lower-case d) that is observed as standing, upaṭṭhahati, for x amount of time, before it falls away. This stablity is an observable dhamma, and the flux is also an observable dhamma. Both of these are anicca. (Which has nothing to do with flux.)
Damdifino what you mean by “flux.” The reality is, of course, a “standing” dhamma is not unchanging even while “standing.”

You can debate about the existence/non-existence of "total flux", the existence/non-existence of "total stability" as much as you'd like... much like a saṃsāra-bound, ordinary worldling would've compared to a tathāgata.
Ooh, another snap. I do not subscribe to the cartoon notion of “total flux.” It is a straw-man notion. The question I have what does the supposed “endures unchanged for at least a certain interval of time” actually mean.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:04 pm

Moderator note: Off topic stuff is being removed. Discussions of the nature of definitions can be pursued in another thread, please.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:05 pm

beeblebrox wrote:I'd say that it varies... the earth is present for a very long time; this body is present for a shorter time; and thoughts are even shorter.

Hi Beeblebrox & all,

Again, there is no need to accept the theory of radical momentariness to clearly see for oneself the alteration while persisting (ṭhitassa aññathatta) of fabrications.

And by extension, specifically regarding physical processes, if there is no alteration in the circulatory system or the central nervous system of the body (for example) then you are very likely either (i) dead, or (ii) soon to be dead. And even a dead body undergoes a process of decomposition.

Alteration or change or flux is common to all physical things on both micro and macro levels.

All the best,

Geoff

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:06 pm

Paññāsikhara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:

I'm not sure if it is this exactly which Tilt is referring to as "bad philosophy", but it is pretty bad.
I would have gotten to it eventually, but thanks for your very clear exposition.


Sorry if I stole your punchline... :tongue:
Not a problem.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:17 pm

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:28 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Ooooh, "It's not my fault if you confuse between all of these. (That's probably a sign of a poorly-developed dhamma vicaya.)" An ad hom. Goodness.

I apologize. :tongue:

tiltbillings wrote:Ooh, another snap. I do not subscribe to the cartoon notion of “total flux.” It is a straw-man notion. The question I have what does the supposed “endures unchanged for at least a certain interval of time” actually mean.

I'd say that this idea of enduring means 100% "unchanging" is also a cartoon straw-man. The words are not perfect, you know? (That's why I view them as anatta.) I also doubt that these states are literally "standing" like the bipeds do.

Ñāṇa wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:I'd say that it varies... the earth is present for a very long time; this body is present for a shorter time; and thoughts are even shorter.

Hi Beeblebrox & all,

Again, there is no need to accept the theory of radical momentariness to clearly see for oneself the alteration while persisting (ṭhitassa aññathatta) of fabrications.

I agree, there is no need to bring the idea of "momentariness" too far, but...

Ñāṇa wrote:And by extension, specifically regarding physical processes, if there is no alteration in the circulatory system or the central nervous system of the body (for example) then you are very likely either (i) dead, or (ii) soon to be dead. And even a dead body undergoes a process of decomposition.

Alteration or change or flux is common to all physical things on both micro and macro levels.

There also is no need to bring the idea of a "flux" too far. (I see no extension, by the way.) There are momentary things, and there are flowing things. One also sometimes has the quality of other, to a varying degree... but that's no reason for us to go to one extreme or other. That is basically a recipe for saṃsāra in a nutshell.

All the best,

Zaphod

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:49 pm

beeblebrox wrote:There also is no need to bring the idea of a "flux" too far.

I agree, there is no need to bring the idea of flux too far. The penetration of conditioned arising (paṭiccasamuppāda) in both forward and reverse sequence will eliminate adherence to any views of existence and non-existence.

All the best,

Geoff

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:06 am

Ñāṇa wrote:The penetration of conditioned arising (paṭiccasamuppāda) in both forward and reverse sequence will eliminate adherence to any views of existence and non-existence.
many suggest that simply saying that momentary impermanence is produced posits existence and nonexistence -- for it is an existing thing upon which the cessation of the thing depends. one cant really posit any other more offensive instance of existence and nonexistence than this, unless one enters atman land of unchanging essences etc.

beeblebrox wrote:I'd say that this idea of enduring means 100% "unchanging" is also a cartoon straw-man. The words are not perfect, you know? (That's why I view them as anatta.) I also doubt that these states are literally "standing" like the bipeds do.
exactly. furthermore, "'abiding" technically implies being unchanging, even if we posit that abiding has a starting, abiding, aging, and disintegration to it. for it is that "abiding" itself which is subject to those 4 factors over time. if it were not "abiding" over that period of time, you couldnt say something starts, abides, ages, and is destroyed
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:39 am

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:The penetration of conditioned arising (paṭiccasamuppāda) in both forward and reverse sequence will eliminate adherence to any views of existence and non-existence.
many suggest that simply saying that momentary change is produced posits existence and nonexistence -- for it is an existing thing upon which the cessation of the thing depends. one cant really posit any other more offensive instance of existence and nonexistence than this, unless one enters atman land of unchanging essences etc.

beeblebrox wrote:I'd say that this idea of enduring means 100% "unchanging" is also a cartoon straw-man. The words are not perfect, you know? (That's why I view them as anatta.) I also doubt that these states are literally "standing" like the bipeds do.
exactly. furthermore, "'abiding" technically implies being unchanging, even if we posit that abiding has a starting, abiding, aging, and disintegration to it. for it is that "abiding" itself which is subject to those 4 factors over time. if it were not "abiding" over that period of time, you couldnt say something starts, abides, ages, and is destroyed


Hi 5heaps,

I dont understand. Why do you say that abiding technically implies being unchanging? It seems to me that while abiding an object remains within certain parameters which are recognized as the threshold within which the designation remains valid. It seems to me that just because there is no ultimate parameters does not mean that the discernment of relative differentiation between what was, is, and what comes next cant be described. Why does reality need to conform to linguistic norms. Regardless of what we call it, happening happens.

Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:21 am

gabrielbranbury wrote:Why do you say that abiding technically implies being unchanging?
because functioning things arise in dependence on their respective causes and conditions, and they are empty of independent natures (ie. being independent of their parts). any conceptual designating happens after the fact (or at least separate to), and so when dealing with impermanence we are dealing with factors pertaining to the physical and/or mental aggregate (though we could do it to any compounded object), not concepts.

is that clearer? in other words if compounded things were not dependent on their parts but depended just on linguistic function then your point about a threshold would have some meaning. however if a mere collection of parts occurs separately to linguistic function then how could the threshold idea have much meaning? compounded thing is compounded thing regardless of what you call it or what threshold one imagines there to be.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Individual » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:23 am

Perhaps the complexity of the experience\truth\reality cannot be readily or infinitely reduced to a series of clearer and clearer terminology, but that at a certain arbitrary point, one has to state that certain things are merely unconjecturable.

If we had a machine which could transmit the electrical activity from one brain to another, perhaps this might address the issue because it would be clear that:

Either there is a differing perception (and the origin of your opponent's perception is not something you understand)

Or

You have the same perception but are using different terms because of the ambiguity of language, the non-clarity of language.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra

User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sobeh » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:04 am

It's a good point: whether the same or different (and, perhaps to remind us, whether both the same and different or neither the same nor different), perception is nevertheless understandable as a human function. That's all the Dhamma needs to assert in order to be effective.


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: clw_uk and 14 guests